Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einzuplanen.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching German grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning German now

Questions & Answers about Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einzuplanen.

In Es ist sinnvoll, what does es refer to? Is it like “it” in English?

Here es is a dummy (impersonal) subject. It doesn’t refer to any specific thing.

German often uses this pattern:

  • Es ist + adjective + zu + infinitive
    Es ist sinnvoll, … = It is sensible / It makes sense to …

In English, you also use a dummy it here (It is sensible to plan enough time…), but you could also say simply “Planning enough time is sensible.”

So es is just there to fill the subject position grammatically; it doesn’t point to any concrete noun.


Why is there a comma before genug Zeit: Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit …?

The comma marks the beginning of an infinitive clause with zu:

  • Es ist sinnvoll,
  • genug Zeit … einzuplanen.

In German, an infinitive clause that starts with zu + verb and has its own logical subject or more detail is usually separated by a comma, especially in more formal or correct writing.

Pattern:

  • Es ist + Adjektiv, + zu + Infinitiv
    • Es ist wichtig, pünktlich zu sein.
    • Es ist schwer, Deutsch zu lernen.
    • Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit einzuplanen.

The whole part genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einzuplanen functions together as the thing that is “sensible”.


Why is it einzuplanen and not zu planen ein or einzu planen?

Because einplanen is a separable prefix verb:

  • basic verb: planen
  • separable prefix: ein-
  • full verb: einplanen (“to schedule / allow for / factor in”)

Rules:

  1. In the infinitive with zu, zu goes between prefix and stem and the word stays written as one word:

    • einzuplanen, anzufangen, aufzustehen, mitzukommen
  2. You cannot write:

    • zu planen ein
    • einzu planen

So:

  • correct: einzuplanen
  • general rule: prefix + zu + verb stem → all written as one word.

Why use einplanen instead of just planen? Don’t they both mean “to plan”?

They’re related but not identical in nuance:

  • planen = to plan (to make a plan in general)

    • den Urlaub planen – to plan the vacation
    • ein Projekt planen – to plan a project
  • einplanen = to include / allow for / factor in something in your plan

    • Zeit einplanen – to schedule / allow time for something
    • Geld für Reparaturen einplanen – to budget money for repairs

In Zeit einplanen, the idea is:
You are making a plan (for your day, week, life), and you reserve time within that plan for relaxation and exercise.

If you said:

  • Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung zu planen.
    it’s understandable, but less idiomatic. Germans strongly prefer Zeit einplanen in this context.

Why is genug before Zeit and why doesn’t it change form (no endings)?

Genug is an invariable adverb/pronoun meaning “enough”. It does not decline, so it never takes endings:

  • genug Zeit – enough time
  • genug Geld – enough money
  • nicht genug Schlaf – not enough sleep

Its position:

  • Most common: genug + noun

    • genug Zeit, genug Leute, genug Informationen
  • You can also sometimes say noun + genug, but usually with verbs/adjectives:

    • Wir haben Zeit genug. – a bit more literary/formal
    • Ich habe gegessen genug. – poetic/archaic style

In modern standard speech, genug Zeit is the normal, neutral order.


Why is there no article before Zeit: why not eine genug Zeit or genug eine Zeit?

Because Zeit here is treated like a mass/uncountable noun, similar to “time” in English:

  • English: enough time (not “an enough time”)
  • German: genug Zeit (not eine genug Zeit)

With genug and similar quantity words, you often omit the article when talking about a general, not specifically defined amount:

  • viel Zeit – a lot of time
  • wenig Geld – little money
  • etwas Ruhe – some peace/quiet
  • genug Zeit – enough time

If you wanted to specify a particular “block” of time, you’d use something like:

  • eine Stunde Zeit – an hour of time
  • eine Woche Zeit – a week of time

But for the general idea “enough time”, no article is used.


Why are there no articles before Entspannung and Bewegung either?

They are used in a general, abstract sense:

  • Entspannung – relaxation (as an activity/state)
  • Bewegung – physical exercise/movement (as a general concept)

In German, when talking about activities or concepts in general, you often omit the article:

  • Ich brauche Ruhe. – I need peace/quiet.
  • Sport ist gesund. – Sport/exercise is healthy.
  • Rauchen ist ungesund. – Smoking is unhealthy.
  • Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung – time for relaxation and exercise (in general)

If you specified them more concretely, you might use articles:

  • die Entspannung am Abend – the relaxation in the evening
  • die Bewegung an der frischen Luft – the movement/exercise in the fresh air

But in this sentence, the meaning is broad and general, so no articles.


What case are Zeit, Entspannung, and Bewegung in, and why?

Let’s break it down:

  • genug Zeit einzuplanen

    • Zeit is the direct object of einzuplanenaccusative.
  • für Entspannung und Bewegung

    • The preposition für always takes the accusative.
    • So Entspannung and Bewegung are both accusative, governed by für.

But since these nouns are singular and feminine, and there’s no article, their nominative and accusative forms look the same:

  • Nominative: die Entspannung, die Bewegung
  • Accusative: die Entspannung, die Bewegung

So:

  • Zeit = accusative object of einzuplanen
  • Entspannung, Bewegung = accusative objects of für

Could I also say Es ist sinnvoll, für Entspannung und Bewegung genug Zeit einzuplanen? Is that different?

Yes, that sentence is also correct:

  • Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einzuplanen.
  • Es ist sinnvoll, für Entspannung und Bewegung genug Zeit einzuplanen.

Both are grammatical and natural. The difference is slight emphasis:

  1. genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einzuplanen

    • Emphasis slightly more on “enough time” as a block, then specifying what it’s for.
  2. für Entspannung und Bewegung genug Zeit einzuplanen

    • Emphasis slightly more on “for relaxation and exercise”, then saying that there should be enough time for them.

In everyday use, both are fine; most speakers wouldn’t feel a real difference.


What is the difference between Es ist sinnvoll … and Es macht Sinn …?

Both are commonly used, but there are nuances:

  • Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit einzuplanen.

    • Literally: It is sensible / reasonable / meaningful to plan enough time.
    • Sounds slightly more formal or standard.
    • Focuses on prudence, reasonableness.
  • Es macht Sinn, genug Zeit einzuplanen.

    • Literally: It makes sense to plan enough time.
    • Very common in spoken German, slightly more colloquial.
    • Focuses on logical sense.

In everyday conversation, Es macht Sinn is extremely frequent and widely accepted. Some traditionalists once preferred Es ist sinnvoll, but in modern German both are fine in most contexts.


Who is actually doing the planning in Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit … einzuplanen? There is no subject like “I” or “you”.

The infinitive clause genug Zeit … einzuplanen has an implicit, general subject, similar to English:

  • It is sensible to plan enough time…
    (→ implied: one / people / you / we should do this)

In German, zu + infinitive in this pattern doesn’t show the subject, but it’s understood from context as a general “man”:

  • Es ist wichtig, pünktlich zu sein.
    (→ It’s important to be on time. [in general])

If you want to make the subject explicit, you can switch to a dass-clause:

  • Es ist sinnvoll, dass man genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einplant.
    • It is sensible that one plans enough time…

or:

  • Es ist sinnvoll, dass du genug Zeit … einplanst.
    • It is sensible that you plan enough time…

But the original version is more compact and very natural.


Can I rephrase this using dass instead of zu + infinitive? How would that change the grammar?

Yes, you can use a dass-clause:

  • Es ist sinnvoll, dass man genug Zeit für Entspannung und Bewegung einplant.

Differences:

  1. Structure

    • Original: Es ist sinnvoll, genug Zeit … einzuplanen.
      • zu + infinitive at the end.
    • With dass: Es ist sinnvoll, dass man genug Zeit … einplant.
      • dass-clause with a finite verb (einplant) at the end and an explicit subject (man).
  2. Style

    • zu + infinitive sounds a bit more compact and neutral, often preferred in written German when it fits.
    • dass can feel a bit heavier, but is sometimes clearer when you must name the subject.

Meaning-wise, both express essentially the same idea.